DamianTV
08-29-2014, 05:47 PM
http://www.vice.com/read/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies
As Americans continue to embrace pot—as medicine and for recreational use—opponents are turning to a set of academic researchers to claim that policymakers should avoid relaxing restrictions around marijuana. It's too dangerous, risky, and untested, they say. Just as drug company-funded research has become incredibly controversial in recent years, forcing major medical schools and journals to institute strict disclosure requirements, could there be a conflict of interest issue in the pot debate?
VICE has found that many of the researchers who have advocated against legalizing pot have also been on the payroll of leading pharmaceutical firms with products that could be easily replaced by using marijuana. When these individuals have been quoted in the media, their drug-industry ties have not been revealed.
Take, for example, Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and in academic publications warning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he's writing anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what's left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a powerful new opioid called Zohydro).
Kleber, who did not respond to a request for comment, maintains important influence over the pot debate. For instance, his writing has been cited by the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police in its opposition to marijuana legalization, and has been published by the American Psychiatric Association in the organization's statement warning against marijuana for medicinal uses.
...
(Continues on Link)
General Politics due to the "Marijuana should stay illegal, young Europeans say (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458750-Marijuana-should-stay-illegal-young-Europeans-say)" thread. Also in GP because getting paid to be pro or anti anything is a Political consequence and does not focus at all on the Medical aspects. The Politics of Science is far more complicated than the Science itself.
Anyhow, this is a symptom of a Fascist Govt. This is the Corporate part of Fascism doing what it does. These Corporations can survive by simply exploiting Govt to make competition illegal, which obviously bolsters profits. It would be no different than if Hoover Vaccum Company tried to outlaw Kirby Vacuum Cleaner sales. Yet, the consequences of making anything illegal are much more far spread. We end up creating a Black Market. We end up with the War on Drugs and all of its consequences and costs. We end up with the Law setting the price for drugs instead of Free Market by adjusting the Risk to Profit ratio as opposed to standard Supply and Demand. We end up with costs that can only be measured in the number of human lives they destroy. They line their coffers with silver, we pay in blood. This situation not only creates a Medical Industrial Complex that thrives from sickness, but a plethora of Industrial Complexes, each with its own set of consequences to be measured in the number of human lives they ruin.
As Americans continue to embrace pot—as medicine and for recreational use—opponents are turning to a set of academic researchers to claim that policymakers should avoid relaxing restrictions around marijuana. It's too dangerous, risky, and untested, they say. Just as drug company-funded research has become incredibly controversial in recent years, forcing major medical schools and journals to institute strict disclosure requirements, could there be a conflict of interest issue in the pot debate?
VICE has found that many of the researchers who have advocated against legalizing pot have also been on the payroll of leading pharmaceutical firms with products that could be easily replaced by using marijuana. When these individuals have been quoted in the media, their drug-industry ties have not been revealed.
Take, for example, Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and in academic publications warning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he's writing anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what's left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a powerful new opioid called Zohydro).
Kleber, who did not respond to a request for comment, maintains important influence over the pot debate. For instance, his writing has been cited by the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police in its opposition to marijuana legalization, and has been published by the American Psychiatric Association in the organization's statement warning against marijuana for medicinal uses.
...
(Continues on Link)
General Politics due to the "Marijuana should stay illegal, young Europeans say (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458750-Marijuana-should-stay-illegal-young-Europeans-say)" thread. Also in GP because getting paid to be pro or anti anything is a Political consequence and does not focus at all on the Medical aspects. The Politics of Science is far more complicated than the Science itself.
Anyhow, this is a symptom of a Fascist Govt. This is the Corporate part of Fascism doing what it does. These Corporations can survive by simply exploiting Govt to make competition illegal, which obviously bolsters profits. It would be no different than if Hoover Vaccum Company tried to outlaw Kirby Vacuum Cleaner sales. Yet, the consequences of making anything illegal are much more far spread. We end up creating a Black Market. We end up with the War on Drugs and all of its consequences and costs. We end up with the Law setting the price for drugs instead of Free Market by adjusting the Risk to Profit ratio as opposed to standard Supply and Demand. We end up with costs that can only be measured in the number of human lives they destroy. They line their coffers with silver, we pay in blood. This situation not only creates a Medical Industrial Complex that thrives from sickness, but a plethora of Industrial Complexes, each with its own set of consequences to be measured in the number of human lives they ruin.